Most active commenters
  • arrowsmith(3)
  • hermitcrab(3)

←back to thread

At Least 13 People Died by Suicide Amid U.K. Post Office Scandal, Report Says

(www.nytimes.com)
626 points xbryanx | 23 comments | 11 Jul 25 11:56 UTC | HN request time: 0.882s | source | bottom
Show context
akudha ◴[11 Jul 25 14:03 UTC] No.44532288[source]▶
This was depressing to read. Failures at so many levels.

1. Immediately after Horizon was rolled out, issues were reported. But ignored

2. Prosecutors didn't bother to verify if there is another explanation before accusing thousands of people of stealing? Isn't it common sense to pause for a second and think, "could we please double check the evidence? how can thousands of postal workers suddenly turn into thieves?"

3. local newspaper had published a photo of her and labeled her the “pregnant thief.” - of course, UK tabloids. Click baits and write whatever the fuck they want, no matter whose lives are destroyed

4. post office has said that it does not have the means to provide redress for that many people - so they have the means to falsely prosecute and destroy the lives of thousands of people, but they don't have the means to correct their blunders?

This happened more than a decade ago. Citizens are expected to do everything on time (pay taxes, renew drivers license...) or get fined/jailed, but the government can sit on their butt for 10 YEARS and do nothing about a blunder they caused?

What about Fujitsu? Why can't the government make Fujitsu pay for the destruction caused by their shitty software?

Jeez. This is just fucking nuts

replies(8): >>44532458 #>>44532620 #>>44532731 #>>44532787 #>>44533037 #>>44533826 #>>44535067 #>>44537287 #
1. dagmx ◴[11 Jul 25 14:50 UTC] No.44532787[source]▶
I really wish someone had the political capital to do something about the tabloids. They’re really a detriment to society.
replies(4): >>44532998 #>>44533002 #>>44534851 #>>44537961 #
2. johnnyApplePRNG ◴[11 Jul 25 15:07 UTC] No.44532998[source]▶
Politicians love the tabloids. They distract from the real goings-on.
3. arrowsmith ◴[11 Jul 25 15:08 UTC] No.44533002[source]▶
I don't like the tabloids either but what exactly do you propose we do? Are you sure it's a good idea to undermine the freedom of the press?

A government with the power to censor the tabloids is also a government with the power to censor the news outlets that you do like. I'd be careful about opening that can of worms.

replies(6): >>44533050 #>>44533134 #>>44533356 #>>44533535 #>>44533551 #>>44538509 #
4. junon ◴[11 Jul 25 15:11 UTC] No.44533050[source]▶
When tabloids circumvent due process to commit slander and get away with it there should be penalties, yes.
replies(1): >>44533141 #
5. jedimastert ◴[11 Jul 25 15:17 UTC] No.44533134[source]▶
Aren't defamation laws in the UK almost shockingly restrictive? How the hell are they able to operate?
replies(2): >>44533830 #>>44537982 #
6. arrowsmith ◴[11 Jul 25 15:18 UTC] No.44533141{3}[source]▶
Defamation is already illegal. People sue each other for defamation all the time - in fact UK libel law is notoriously weighted in favour of the plaintiff. If these men were defamed they can sue the tabloids and they'll probably win.

GP was saying the government should do something. What more can the government do?

replies(1): >>44534754 #
7. skywhopper ◴[11 Jul 25 15:34 UTC] No.44533356[source]▶
No other country has as toxic a press culture as the UK. Addressing that doesn’t have to mean restricting press freedom. If something is a destructive cancer on society, you can’t just ignore it, or eventually it will destroy those freedoms for everyone else.
8. BobaFloutist ◴[11 Jul 25 15:48 UTC] No.44533535[source]▶
The United States (famously) has stronger free speech protections and weaker libel/slander laws, yet seems to have less of an issue with tabloids. Is there maybe more of a divide between what's alloweable for "public figures" versus private citizens? Or maybe even our right-wing rags are more skeptical of the government? I don't know what the difference is, but you seem to see less of this sort of thing, gross as our tabloids still are. Maybe it really is just a cultural difference somehow.
replies(1): >>44533889 #
9. cgriswald ◴[11 Jul 25 15:49 UTC] No.44533551[source]▶
Civil defamation laws could equally be used to undermine freedom of the press. In any case, the 'can of worms' you are talking about was the state of affairs in the UK until 2009 and is currently the case in several US states and yet somehow we still have people in those states openly criticizing a sitting president.

Rather than throwing our hands in the air, maybe we could expect our governments to craft laws in such a way that we can punish people for willful lies resulting in death while still preserving our right to free speech and the press.

replies(1): >>44533906 #
10. ◴[11 Jul 25 16:08 UTC] No.44533830{3}[source]▶
11. esseph ◴[11 Jul 25 16:12 UTC] No.44533889{3}[source]▶
The US tabloids are awful. Any checkout isle at a Walmart, Dollar General, etc is just littered with them, right next to the disposable lighter packs and chewing gum.
replies(3): >>44534282 #>>44534624 #>>44536086 #
12. arrowsmith ◴[11 Jul 25 16:14 UTC] No.44533906{3}[source]▶
The UK already has extremely strong defamation laws, to the point where we attract "libel tourism" - foreigners find dubious excuses to bring their libel cases to the UK courts so that they have an easier chance of winning.

Lots of people in my replies are telling me that I'm wrong, but no-one has yet answered my question: what specifically should the government do?

replies(1): >>44534597 #
13. ToValueFunfetti ◴[11 Jul 25 16:45 UTC] No.44534282{4}[source]▶
But nobody reads them in the US[1], and many are about celebrities or cryptids or what-have-you rather than current events or private citizens. There's definitely a cultural difference here.

[1] UK has 1/4th of the population of the US but The Sun has 4x the circulation of The New York Post. The Daily Mirror every day puts out 4x the number of papers that The National Enquirer puts out in a week.

14. cgriswald ◴[11 Jul 25 17:06 UTC] No.44534597{4}[source]▶
That’s because your question appears rhetorical. You had already come to the conclusion that governments couldn’t or shouldn’t do anything.

What could be done: (1) Stronger penalties, perhaps tied to proportionate burdens of proof. (2) Criminal penalties.

A weak burden of proof with mediocre penalties is just a cost of doing business.

15. BobaFloutist ◴[11 Jul 25 17:08 UTC] No.44534624{4}[source]▶
Sure, I did say they were gross, but they just seem to mostly cause less concrete damage. Not sure why.
16. rwmj ◴[11 Jul 25 17:18 UTC] No.44534754{4}[source]▶
If they have a ton of money, which these postmasters do not.
17. flir ◴[11 Jul 25 17:27 UTC] No.44534851[source]▶
Think that would be solving the last century's problem. I think you'd get more bang for your buck by reining in social media.
18. umbra07 ◴[11 Jul 25 19:36 UTC] No.44536086{4}[source]▶
they aren't nearly as toxic as the UK tabloids.

Also, I never hear anybody talk about what the tabloids are reporting. There's a lot of social stigma attached to them in the US.

19. hermitcrab ◴[11 Jul 25 23:47 UTC] No.44537961[source]▶
I think the Internet is gradually destroying them economically. Google stole their lunch money. Unfortunately it is also destroying the broadsheet papers. I'm not sure any of them profitable now. And that means much less investigative journalism.
replies(1): >>44538506 #
20. hermitcrab ◴[11 Jul 25 23:49 UTC] No.44537982{3}[source]▶
It is so expensive to sue somebody for libel that it is out of reach for most people. No matter how egregious the libel.
21. immibis ◴[12 Jul 25 01:27 UTC] No.44538506[source]▶
The Internet is giving tabloids wider reach with less printed paper
replies(1): >>44540940 #
22. dagmx ◴[12 Jul 25 01:27 UTC] No.44538509[source]▶
Simple things like anti-harassment rules, paparazzi regulations and rules against publishing known fabrications would be a good start without impugning on the freedom of press.
23. hermitcrab ◴[12 Jul 25 10:26 UTC] No.44540940{3}[source]▶
The Daily Mail has been quite successful at exporting it's own particular brand of nastiness online. Unfortunately.